MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966288038 · doi:10.1080/14733140802656198

Working therapeutically with mothers who experience the trauma of homelessness: An opportunity for growth

2009· article· en· W1966288038 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria Tischler, Vicki Edwards, Panos Vostanis

Bibliographic record

VenueCounselling and Psychotherapy Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
FundersUniversity of Nottingham
KeywordsPsychosocialPsychological resilienceAgency (philosophy)Psychological interventionPsychologyPopulationSocial workMedicinePsychiatryPsychotherapistEconomic growthSociologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Homelessness is recognised to be a traumatic event in itself and is often preceded by the experience of violence. More recent research has indicated that homelessness can function to enact growth and resilience in women with dependent children. This review paper draws together findings from a series of studies involving women with dependent children who experience homelessness. It identifies key psychosocial and health priorities in this population and how findings related to resilience and growth can be harnessed in therapeutic work. Pragmatic service developments and examples of good practice in therapeutic and multi‐agency interventions from the domestic violence and homelessness literature are described and recommendations are made for developing services and working therapeutically with marginalised and transient populations. Therapists need to work in a flexible and integrated way with other key services, so that the crisis and long term needs of this population are met.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.264
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCounselling and Psychotherapy ResearchSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207